...this is only a test...
Treasure State Network.
An entity would like to look at a class of documents held by Montana county clerk and recorders. Treasure State Network formally requested these records, in writing.
Out of 56 Montana counties, one, Powder River County, sent out something besides a “do it your self” letter. There really isn’t much to Powder River County, so compliance may not have been too hard.
That is not, however, the point.
The letter from the Mineral County Clerk and Recorder caught my eye. “I do not try to determine in generalities which records may or may not be included in a broad scope request.”
She says this, apparently implying that the request is broad and unclear, yet the letter from TSN was fairly specific.
“I am not obligated to conduct a search for all documents which meet some specified criteria.” First, she calls it a “broad scope request” yet now we have “specified criteria”.
“all presently active or enforceable contracts to which you are a party, and to which a non governmental person or entity is also a party, excluding employment contracts with government employees, and excluding minor contracts having a total monetary value or payment obligation of less than $1,000.” and “all presently active or enforceable sole source (no bid) contracts to which you are a party, and to which a non governmental person or entity is also a party, excluding employment contracts with government employees and excluding minor contracts having a total monetary value or payment obligation of less than $1,000.”
This request clearly asks for specific contracts, and supporting documents if needed. The dates, amounts and names of parties should not only be in the contracts themselves, but it certainly appears to me that virtually all of this information should also be documented in the accounts payable and/or receivable records of these County governments.
If you are a government entity, and have a specific business relationship with Company A, you are generally paying for or receiving services under a certain set of terms -typically outlined in a contract. One could logically assume you would have readily accessible records outlining what you are paying, to whom, when, and why. This is not rocket science.
(unless you are talking about The City/ECP & SME)
7-4-2611. Role and duties of county clerk and election administrator
(2) The county clerk shall:
(c) make full entries of all its resolutions and decisions on all questions concerning the raising of money for and the allowance of accounts against the county;
(g) preserve and file all accounts acted upon by the board;
Out of 56 Montana Counties, apparently only one Clerk even attempted to assist TSN in locating this information. One. And they all know they have to keep specified indexes, including the ones that are the focus of a new request from TSN. People like this do not just go away, and we on the other side should thank them for that.
Would it have been so hard to send a list off, and say here you go, this is what we have we’ll get er copied, you let us know exactly which ones you want? And yes, we will charge you the statutory fee if you want them.
The nice thing would be that they don’t really have to worry about what else is on that there list, I mean, it is all Public Record, RIGHT?
They almost certainly have all the requested information virtually at their fingertips, on computer. I know for a fact that some of them are in the process of putting all current bids and proposals online.
It is a public record, requested by a member of the public, from a person who is employed by the public.
Why is this so hard?
18 June 2009 |
Life |
4 Comments
From Mary in my comments. “Hey one of the responses to the RFP for water consultants devotes most of it to the “growing cities doctrine.”
As some of you may know, last fall The City decided we needed to buy some water rights, for future growth, blah blah blah. My opinion is that 1) the commission is trying to cover its ass for basically giving away our water reservation, and 2) we now have the opportunity to get that reservation back, and should jump on it and save our money. JUMP ON IT! SAVE OUR WATER! I do not believe the water contract with SME is valid, as it specifically states it is contracting water for the coal plant, not for SME, not for a gas plant, not for whatever SME wants to build. It is water for the COAL PLANT. ”
“The City agrees to sell to Southern the raw water necessary to operate a 250 mW circulating fluidized bed coal fired electric generating plant known as the Highwood Station to be located east of the boundary of the corporate limits of the City.”
The City saw selling water from the reservation for use at the coal plant as a way to get below cost power to jump start Electric City Power, and at the same time prove up the water reservation and perhaps make a little money. This could have worked, in theory. Now, however, the water credits help push ECP further into the black hole of failure, the potential gas plant will not use as much water, so revenue drops, and we signed that agreement with PPL, so we cannot develop the remaining water from the reservation without another place of diversion/use, which is going to drive up the cost of developing the remaining water in the reservation.
So there is a bit of background, and an opinion or two thrown in. No charge for that.
Now lets talk about the comment left by our intrepid commissioner. I have not seen the RFP’s. Apparently, they are out of reach of the search tactics I employ. I have just one little tidbit to analyze and dissect.
The “growing cities doctrine”.
In February, 2008, Greg Petesch wrote a fairly lengthy document, directed to the Water Policy Committee. Greg Petesch is the Code Commissioner and Director of Legal Services for the Montana Legislative Services Division.
He wrote “The “Growing Communities Doctrine” is a doctrine that gives special consideration to municipal water suppliers within the prior appropriation system for administering water rights. The Doctrine appears to contain two primary elements. It gives municipal water suppliers more time to perfect their water rights by allowing the rights to be held for future needs and therefor allowing more time to put the water to beneficial use. In addition, the Doctrine usually exempts municipal water rights from loss through nonuse. The combination of these two elements allow a municipal water supplier to hold a priority date for a water right in anticipation of reasonably foreseeable future needs in the municipality without the risk of loss of the water right. The doctrine is based upon prior case law and has been codified in some states, such as Idaho.”
He goes on, and includes some fairly extensive legal background.
But this doctrine has not been codified in Montana. Select areas of it are sections of MCA, and that, and only that, is what should be used in the RFP.
Montana State law is fairly clear on these issues. One of the areas of the doctrine, which is Montana state law, concerns water reservations. A water reservation allows an amout of water to be held for future use. I am attempting to determine if the city could increase its reservation, but I consider it doubtful, especially since there is, at this time, no legitimate projected need for additional water with out first proving our current reservation.
I do believe the City could extend the time to prove up the water reservation if it is not used (proven) by Montana Megawatts, SME, and the Malt Plant, or any other municipal use, before 2025.
The loss through non use addressed by Petesch is also fairly clear. I know many of you are thinking we should have used that to keep our historical Gibson rights, but it doesn’t work that way. You must actually use the right, at some point, to get to keep it. Great Falls not only did not use that water, ever, we never had the ability to use that water. Our water diversion, historically, has never been able to pull the claimed volume of water from the river.
So, I guess I will just wait to see what our Commissioners decide to do. Rather daunting to consider spending $10,000,000.00 on water right now though.
6 June 2009 |
Life |
No Comments
“Elk farms were perfect vehicles. They were the source of chronic waste disease … Google it.”
“Game farms: The activities of these people was a threat to a public asset - wild game populations. They threatened them.”
I was curious how threatening the activities of “these people” was, and with what certainty one could state “They were the source of chronic waste disease”. (I won’t even comment it is “wasting“. Oh crap, I just did.)
Significant game farm regulation in Montana:
Montana I-143, passed on November 7, 2000 with 51.4% of voters in favor.
The language that appeared on the ballot:
Initiative Statute
“This initiative would amend state law to prohibit all new alternative livestock ranches, also known as game farms. Existing game farms would be allowed to continue operating, but would be prohibited from transferring their license to any other party. They would also be prohibited from allowing shooting of game farm animals for any type of fee. The proposal also repeals provisions of the law concerning applications for expansion of game farms. If approved by voters, the measure would take effect immediately.
This measure would eliminate $104,000 in annual costs of review of game farm applications and expansions, as well as $3,850 yearly revenues from application fees. Abolishing fee shooting may force closure of some game farms, which could result in less revenue to the state and lower overall regulation costs.”
That is what the voters saw, and were asked to vote on. That is what 51.4% of voters approved of. Lots of worry about disease there.
Now read carefully what the Montana Wildlife Federation had to say “In February 2000, 79 game farms were licensed in Montana. In February 2008, 47 remain in business. For statistical purposes the failure of game farm operations between 2000 and today, post I-143, is an average annual failure rate of about 4 percent. In the four years prior to the passage of I-143, the annual failure rate was about 10 percent. I-143 may have influenced the failure rate but the results show a decline that is less dramatic after the passage of I-143.”
This was posted on the website of a group that was very influential in getting I-143 passed, and defending resultant lawsuits. And this is after a moratorium on new licenses. Encouraging that game farms are still a viable business, but really does nothing to argue the merits of I-143 being bandied about. The fact is, there are still game farms.
Further they state “Has I-143 protected Montana from diseases such as CWD, cryptosporidium, and tuberculosis? Montana has had no occurrence of any of these diseases since adoption of I-143 however; it is all around us in neighboring states and provinces.”
Golly gee, I believe there was only one occurrence of CWD in Montana prior to passage of I-143, hmm?? Here are the current facts on CWD in Montana. Nine animals in Montana total, ever, with CWD. No cases in the wild. My god, it is an epidemic!
Now lets take a quick look at the MCA, shall we?
87-4-414 states among other things:
(1) All alternative livestock lawfully possessed on a licensed alternative livestock ranch are private property for which the licensee is responsible as provided by law.
(2) The licensee may acquire, breed, grow, keep, pursue, handle, harvest, use, sell, or dispose of the alternative livestock and their progeny in any quantity and at any time of year as long as the licensee complies with the requirements of this part, except that the licensee may not allow the shooting of game animals or alternative livestock, as defined in 87-2-101 or 87-4-406, or of any exotic big game species for a fee or other remuneration on an alternative livestock facility.
So, they are private property, you just cannot allow them to be shot for profit. Yeah, that really cuts down on the whole disease transmission possibility thing.
Of course, I guess I cannot fault those that perpetuate this trend. After all, our Governor seems to believe the same thing.
‘‘In Montana, we said it’s a bad idea to pen up a bunch of elk, feed them oats and have fat bankers from New York City shoot them while they’ve got their heads in a grain bucket,’’ Schweitzer said.”
Oh, wait, that’s just the shooting them thing again. It does appear tho, that he might want to become a bit more familiar with the actual laws.
“Elk farming and ‘‘shooter bull’’ hunting operations are banned in Wyoming and Montana. Schweitzer said Idaho should follow suit to protect the three states’ shared resource of Yellowstone’s wild elk herds.”
‘‘It concerns me these governors come out and say this when they have so much disease in their own wild herds,’’ said Kent Bagley, a board member of the Idaho Elk Breeders Association who operates the Teton Mountain Ranch elk farm in Victor, near Yellowstone National Park. ‘‘Look how many counties in Wyoming have found chronic wasting disease in their wild elk and yet they have no game farms. It’s flawed logic.’’
“CWD has now been reported in free ranging deer and elk in 11 states and 2 Canadian province while it has been reported in captive deer and elk (“game farms”) in 9 states and 2 Canadian provinces.”
Yep, conclusive evidence, game farms were the source of chronic wasting disease. Excellent reason to infringe on the rights of private citizens, who were using their property to make a profit, and evicerating an industry 80 years in the making, costing them, and the economy of the State, millions of dollars in lost revenue.
I heard there were witches in Salem. Wanna go drown a few?
8 May 2009 |
Life |
No Comments
From the recent RFP proposal: On August 29, 2003, the City invested $500 to become a member of Southern Montana Electric Generation & Transmission Cooperative, Inc. (Southern). This membership allows the City to purchase electricity for resale from Southern.
On October 7, 2003, the City of Great Falls passed ordinance 2861, authorizing establishment and operation of an electric utility to market power service to customers.
On November 1, 2005, the City passed Ordinance 2925 which created Electric City Power, Inc., a non-profit designed to own, operate, and take all other actions necessary or desirable in connection with the municipal electric utility on behalf of the City.
On December 6, 2005, the City passed Resolution 9537 declaring intent of the City to participate in development of Highwood Generating Station (HGS) and authorizing the City Manager to take all actions necessary.
Electric City Weblog has been attempting to obtain organizational and financial information regarding the SME, ECP and City of Great Falls relationship since at least 2006.
What year did you file your first open records request?
2006
What documents were you looking for?
Financial documents related to a coal plant that our city plans to construct on its outskirts.
Did you get those documents?
Some of them, after months.
Has your local newspaper ever commented on the work you do? Favorably or unfavorably?
Favorably or unfavorably? Our local newspaper studiously avoids discussing any story broken on the blogs.
Many of us have watched Greggs efforts to learn how the ECP, SME, and City relationship is organized and funded. Numerous requests have gleaned some information, which information is what us “uninformed” bloggers must base our assumptions on, because it is all we have.
In a March, 2007 request, ECW asked the City of Great Falls for:
“Financial Records”: Financial statements, financial projections, or accounting Records.
*All Records arising out of or in any way relating to the City’s ownership interest in SME, including all Correspondence, Contracts and/or Financial Records related to the City’s relationship with the other owners of SME. This specifically includes all Records that the City is legally entitled to inspect and copy pursuant to law.
This was in response to an earlier request, which included:
· All organizational documents for Electric City Power, including financial documents showing capitalization.
Documents demonstrating the flow of money between the City of Great Falls and ECP and SME, as well as between ECP and SME.
These requests didn’t come to much. In Gregg’s words “The government of my hometown plans to spend over 128 million dollars on a coal plant, but I guess that the financial records, operating plans and feasibility studies are just none of my business. Sheesh. How did I not know that? My request is “declined.”"
The above is just a small portion of the communications that have been posted on ECW regarding this little Electrical Project our City took upon itself. A side affect of that project is a lawsuit, in which the City is refusing to release documents that several entities, including the Montana Newspaper Association, of which the Great Falls Tribune is a member, believe are covered under Montana public records and right to know laws. I will reference that again in a moment.
Now, ECW was recently made aware that certain tax filings of SME were available to the Public. Reading these documents, filed by SME with the Internal Revenue Service, and containing a statement, under penalty of purgery, that it is complete and correct, one could certainly take the position that a statement made on these documents was correct.
One of the statements was that City Manager John Lawton was paid compensation as a Trustee of SME. This led to a post on ECW, in which Gregg theorized that Lawton was paid, which leads to a conflict of interest with his job as City Manager. Instead of just a link, this is the entire post.
Thanks to Cataract City digging up the SME 990 forms, we see that our former City Manager, John Lawton, was receiving compensation for acting as an SME trustee. All the while he was on the City payroll.
It seems to me that, unless he paid these sums over to the City of Great Falls, he had a pretty clear conflict of interest under City Code: “No officer or employee shall undertake any private employment or service which might prejudice his or her independent judgment in the exercise of his or her official duties.”
Did he pay his compensation over to the City? Who knows? Is anyone even asking the question?
My guess is a) no he didn’t and b) no one but Mary Jolley gives a damn.
(emphasis added)
Apparently, someone noticed this post, and did give a damn, and asked Colleen Balzarini, City Financial & Electrical guru, what was up with the money.
Gregg noted in this post, “I learned today that John Gilbert, former City Commissioner and current member of the Electric City Power Board of Directors, is actually inquiring whether these sums were recieved by Mr. Lawton and whether they were accounted for to the City of Great Falls.”
And then soon after, another post, citing information from John Gilbert, and refuting the statement that Lawton had ever received any compensation, and noting responsibility for the error.
”Trustees of SME “receive” $250 for attending a Board meeting. In the case of representatives of the City of Great Falls, the $250 is never actually paid to any individual. When the City receives its monthly electrical bill from SME, the $250 “compensation” for attending meetings is subtracted from the cash amount the City pays SME for electricity.”
That same day, in an unprecedented move, the Tribune put up an additional on line story. An article about how a blogger had made an unfounded allegation about the City. I believe this is only the second time the Tribune has ever written an article specifically addressing an issue that has been posted first on ECW, or any other local blog.
“Southern Montana has never issued a check to John Lawton, to Greg Doyon or to Coleen Balzarini,” said Balzarini, who sits on the SME board as a trustee. She said she does not receive any payments personally for holding that post.
The Tribune printed an additional article today. In it, Colleen Balzarini apparently feels “it is upsetting that area bloggers would post the information online without more explanation, saying they should “get the facts.”
“All they had to do is call and ask,” she said.
In reply, Gregg Smith, who runs Electric City Weblog, criticized the city and Balzarini for not being more forthcoming in turning over documents in the past.
“I don’t even know if she’d take my calls anymore,” Smith said.
Man, if only Gregg had asked for financial documents, this whole thing could have been avoided.
Now, there have been some documents produced in the last few years. As is typical for him, Gregg has posted about the results of his requests. This post has a link to the SME Bylaws, which state in part:
“The trustees shall not receive salarys for their services, but by resolution of the Board of Trustees, a fixed sum may be allowed any Trustee not otherwise receiving compensation as hereinafter provided, for attendance at each regular or special meeting of the board of trustees and expenses of attending, if any.”
This document states meetings are monthly.
Now, yesterday, The Tribune wrote that Balzarini is a trustee of SME. Is she? I thought that the City Manager, Greg Doyan sat on the Board.
Also in that ECW post above is a link to the open records case Privilege log, submitted by the City, of documents considered by Coleen Balzarini and the City’s attorneys to be outside the scope of Montana open records laws. On the first document on is a list of SME board packets, and the footnote: [1] SME Board Packets refer to the group of bound documents provided exclusively to the SME Board for the sole purpose of SME board meetings.
Remember, board meetings are held monthly. There are 12 board packets identified in 2005, one of which is an August supplement. There are 12 board packets identified in 2006, one of which is a December supplement.
If the Trustee is paid $250.00 for attending a board meeting, and there were 11 monthly meetings in 2005, and 11 monthly meetings in 2006 (source-Board packets classified as confidential in the privilege log) why was compensation equal to 22 meetings paid in 2005, and compensation equal to 24 meetings paid in 2006?
And is Coleen Balzarini, the representative of the City given the task of deciding what records are confidential, or trade secrets, also really a Trustee of SME, the same SME who threatened the City with litigation if those records were disclosed to the Public?
Is it really any wonder that Gregg relied on a document filed with the IRS, since he had access to no others? Is it really a surprise that he didn’t ask the City for the information? Or perhaps Gregg should have relied more on past dealings, and known that just because the documents say it, that doesn’t mean it is what anyone ment.
Yo, Tribune dudes, if you happen to take a run by and see this post, I have more questions you can take to the City. I don’t have to stop here. Just sayin’.
25 April 2009 |
Life |
4 Comments
HB 228.
I have been seeing an awful lot of debate over HB 228, and I don’t really get it. Shall we discuss? I’ll go first.
First, a quick look at what HB 228 changes. “AMENDING SECTIONS 45-8-315, 45-8-316, AND 46-6-502, MCA; AND REPEALING SECTION 45-8-317, MCA.”
45-8-315 Definition. “Concealed weapon” The only changes here are the removal of the word “through” and the addition of a couple commas.
45-8-316 is amended to impose a fine or jail term for using a concealed weapon to commit a crime. Originally, it was the carrying of a concealed weapon that was the crime.
46-6-502 Arrest by private person. In Montana, a private person may arrest another private person “when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person’s immediate arrest.”
HB 228 would add that “Force likely to cause bodily harm” may only be used in certain circumstances, which circumstances are contained in 45-3-101 and 45-3-106.
Now, we are going to repeal Section 45-8-317, which is basically a list of who can legally carry a concealed weapon in the State of Montana, and this would obviously need to be repealed if everyone can carry a concealed weapon.
Now, the New Stuff. Section 1 is first, as usual, which is good because it is the one I want to discuss the most.
NEW SECTION. Section 1. Purpose. The legislature declares that: (1) the right of Montanans to defend their lives and liberties, as provided in Article II, section 3, of the Montana constitution, and their right to keep or bear arms in defense of their homes, persons, and property, as provided in Article II, section 12, of the Montana constitution, is fundamental and may not be called into question;
Article II, Section 12. Right to bear arms. The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
I am certainly not an expert, but I have read and reread the MT constitution, and the MCA, and this is how I interpret this.
I have a right to bear arms.
I have a right to bear arms to protect my person, so I can carry a firearm, on my person.
That right shall not be called into question, until and unless I conceal that weapon.
The remaining new sections are basic housekeeping, to clean up areas the new text would muddy, or are already covered in other areas of the MCA.
I will also direct your attention to MCA 45-8-351, which states in part “(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), no county, city, town, consolidated local government, or other local government unit may prohibit, register, tax, license, or regulate the purchase, sale or other transfer (including delay in purchase, sale, or other transfer), ownership, possession, transportation, use, or unconcealed carrying of any weapon, including a rifle, shotgun, handgun, or concealed handgun.”
I think you could make a pretty good argument that this bill will actually make it easier for those that should not be in possession of a gun to carry one.
Right now, I believe the concealed carry permit must be with you at all times, and be displayed to law enforcement on request. If a police officer notes someone walking down the street, with a partially concealed weapon, he may immediately stop the person and ask for the permit.
One would think this would dissuade your local psycho-meth head on probation from walking down the street with a gun concealed in his pants, because if a cop does notice, local psycho-meth head on probation will be far more likely to get that third strike and head off for the hoosegow.
Passing this bill will likely mean that local psycho-meth head on probation can walk down the street with a gun concealed in his pants and ye local officer may not have the right to ask for a permit, since we just did away with permits and now we all have a RIGHT to walk around with a gun down our pants…
Removing the prohibition on concealed weapons will simply give people who do not want you to know they are carrying a weapon, the right to conceal that weapon from you.
Yet right now in Montana, if I want to drive around with a .44 on my dash, I can. I can carry it. I just cannot conceal it. (and if I do happen to shove it under my jacket on the seat, by accident, I promptly tell the nice police officer, when he pulls me over for speeding, that I have a gun on the seat, and inadvertently concealed it by accident, because I certainly do not want the nice officer to notice it when I go to grab my purse, and think I am a freaking idiot criminal, who is concealing a gun for nefarious purposes, and then he blows off my pinkie toe, because he freaks out thinking I am a idiot criminal going for a gun, when in fact, I just want to show him the awesome picture DMV took of me for my Drivers License).
How will this bill make anyone safer? Wouldn’t you be safer if everyone knew you had the weapon? How is hiding a gun in my purse (maybe I can surprise the purse snatcher with it!) going to keep me safer than a gun on my hip? (Would you try snatching my purse if I had a Glock obviously displayed on my belt? Yeah, try that.)
So in summation, I think everyone already has a right to carry a weapon, and allowing unlimited concealed weapons doesn’t seem necessary to me.
However, if this bill passes, I may have to get a bigger purse, to carry my gun in, because, you know, I wouldn’t want to be the only one not carrying around a gun no one knows I am carrying.
It would really be different than it is now, when only people with Concealed Carry Permits can carry guns no one else knows they are carrying.
(and for purposes of this post, I use the term “everyone” to mean, basically, ”everyone legally entitled to exercise the right to bear arms in the State of Montana”. I just didn’t feel like typing it out every time.)
24 March 2009 |
Life |
4 Comments
AN ACT REVISING THE LAW GOVERNING SECURITY INTERESTS IN LIQUOR LICENSES…
AN ACT CREATING THE MONTANA RECREATION RESPONSIBILITY ACT…
AN ACT PROVIDING THAT A COURT IN A CIVIL ACTION FOR THE WRONGFUL WITHHOLDING OF A TENANT’S SECURITY DEPOSIT…
AN ACT INCREASING THE INCARCERATION TIME FROM 13 MONTHS TO 3 YEARS…
AN ACT GENERALLY REVISING FISH AND GAME LAWS…
AN ACT PRESERVING AND CLARIFYING LAWS RELATING TO THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE…
AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM…
1 March 2009 |
Life |
No Comments
First, some history on what I am talking about, which is the City of Billings claimed water rights. Some time ago I questioned claims that our City should defend excess amounts of claimed water, based on what was happening in Billings. Since then, the adjudication process has been churning along, and now we have new information. This is all public record, which can be accessed at the DNRC website. To view the scanned water right files you need a viewer, which you can download there.
This however, is from the Temp. decree, which is going into the Objections stage. These are issue remarks on the three municipal claims for the City of Billings.
Two of these claims are supplemental, however, the claimed diversion and volume amounts are all added together to equal the maximum diversion of water that the Billings water system could handle - in 1973.
THE CLAIMED FLOW RATE IS IN QUESTION. ACCORDING TO INFORMATION IN THE CLAIM FILE, THE CAPACITY OF THE DIVERSION SYSTEM IS 150.70 CFS.
PLACE OF USE: ACCORDING TO INFORMATION IN THE CLAIM FILE, IT IS NOTED THAT AS THE CITY GROWS IN THE FUTURE, THE PLACE OF USE WILL BE ENLARGED. IT IS QUESTIONED WHETHER THE PLACE OF USE MAY BE INCREASED BEYOND THE CLAIMED WATER SERVICE AREA.
PRIORITY DATE:THE PRIORITY DATE IS IN QUESTION. ACCORDING TO INFORMATION IN THE CLAIM FILE, CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM BEGAN IN THE SPRING OF 1885, CUSTOMERS BEGAN BEING CONNECTED TO THE SYSTEM IN THE FALL OF 1886, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPLETED IN JANUARY, 1887. SYSTEM WAS FIRST TESTED IN MARCH, 1887.
SUPPLEMENTAL RIGHTS: THE COMBINED CLAIMED VOLUME FOR THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS IS 59,280 GALLONS PER CAPITA PER DAY (GCPD) BASED ON THE 1970 CENSUS POPULATION OF 61,581 PEOPLE AND A TOTAL CLAIMED VOLUME OF 4,089,152 ACRE-FEET. THIS APPEARS EXCESSIVE FOR THE CLAIMED PURPOSE. W208213-00, W208214-00, W208215-00.
SUPPLEMENTAL RIGHTS:THE COMBINED CLAIMED FLOW RATE FOR THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS IS 5,648 CFS WHICH APPEARS TO EXCEED THE CAPACITY OF THE DIVERSION SYSTEM. AS OF 1973, THE TOTAL CAPACITY WAS 150.73 CFS. W208213-00, W208214-00, W208215-00.
1885 priority date: This is the date of the claimed right. From the remarks above, it appears that Billings could not have begun using the claimed right in 1885.
Diversion capacity: This is the amount of water that the City has the actual capability to divert from the river. It appears clear that at no time have they had the capability to divert more than 150.73 cfs. Not 5,648 cfs. 150.73 cfs is the most water this system was able to divert, pre 1973, and that is all they can legitimately claim.
Claimed volume: As you can see, the volume claimed would equal 59,280 gallons of water per day for each and every person in the city of Billings. From what information I can find, 250 gallons per day per person is standard.
So there you have it. Remember, there are already objections to these claims lodged by senior, upstream water right holders, with very good claims. And do not forget the claims by Wyoming, which are also very real and legitimate.
16 February 2009 |
Life |
3 Comments
“I would be happy to answer, or find an expert to answer any question you have about wind power. It is the most promising renewable energy source. The U.S. government is working to stimulate a 26-fold increase in wind power development over the next 23 years. If we think strategically as a state today, Montana will provide a significant portion of the nations wind energy and reap community and landowner economic benefits while making positive contributions to our environment and energy security.”
Peggy Beltrone
August 17, 2007.
Wolfpack,
Let me answer your questions with a preface. In late 2001, I toured a Canadian wind farm with other community leaders at the invitation of Exergy wind developer James Carkulis. (James ultimately developed the nine megawatt Horseshoe Bend wind park in Cascade County.) We trudged through the snow in bitter cold temperatures looking at equipment as it lay on the ground prior to installation. I was immediately sold on wind power and its economic benefits for our region. These high value machines could churn out clean power, lease payments for farmers and abundant tax revenue ($20,000+ per megawatt in the first year alone) for struggling rural areas. Wind power could increase our resources for rural roads, public health and schools.
Cascade County threw its efforts into wind power marketing and that program gained national attention. The upshot, I was invited to join the Department of Energy’s steering committee for Wind Powering America, its initiative to push wind power to scale in this country. I have had access to leading government and industry wind power experts in the most exciting time for this renewable energy. Since 2001, Cascade County has concentrated on wind marketing for it economic and tax benefits, not the end user of the power. Our biggest constraint is transmission and we have branched into promotion of new transmission to support the industry.
The proposed Highwood Generating Station has raised questions about wind vs. coal and because of our program, I am often asked questions that draw me into the making power source comparisons. This happened when Tribune reporter Rich Ecke started researching his recent wind vs. coal story. While I have definite environmental preferences for certain types of power, I am much more comfortable directing people to experts in this field and I suggested that Rich talk to Ed Demeo, who is the lead consultant designing DOE’s 20% wind energy by 2030 effort. Ed and I have spent many hours discussing wind and transmission. He is one of the country’s best. Not surprisingly, Rich had already found Ed. I asked Ed to give me a summary of his comments to Rich. They are so good, and I think helpful for your firming questions, I asked Ed for permission to post them here.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following comments are from an e-mail Ed Demeo wrote to me August 1, 2007:
…the basic questions for discussion (for the Tribune story) are whether the proposed coal plant can be replaced with a wind plant, and whether the member cooperatives have given adequate consideration to wind.
I discussed my view that the two plant options are not directly comparable, and that neither by itself is “the best” approach. And that the issue is neither simple nor black and white. I described the issue primarily in terms of risk management: How can the utility consortium (SME) minimize its overall risks?
A decision to proceed with the coal plant (Highwood Generating Station, or HGS) brings two major risks: (a) an unplanned outage is nearly certain to cause loss of power to many customers, since it is a single plant supplying a large portion of the demand; and (b) the exposure to greenhouse-gas restrictions — nearly certain in my view in the near future (5 years or less) — and an associated increase in the cost of energy from the plant or reduction in plant output.
The wind plant would also bring risks: (a) the direct cost of energy could be a bit higher — although I countered that this is not necessarily true and would have to be examined more closely given that costs of power plants of ALL types are on the rise; and (b) the wind plant by itself could not be relied upon to supply the majority of their needs on a regular, predictable basis.
So how can SME best maintain system electric reliability while at the same time effectively managing all of their risks? I recommended a balanced approach that includes diversity in power-generation resources coupled with an expanded range of operating strategies. The latter could include such steps as (a) more — and more use of — interties with neighboring utilities; (b) sharing of system-balancing functions with those neighbors; and (c) adjustment of hydro operation strategies to mesh better with wind’s variations. And the diverse generation resources could include gas-fired plants with good ramping capability, wind, hydro, and even some coal. And these could all play together better as the size of the operating region grows. In addition, a group such as SME could offer some of its wind energy to neighbors who will also have a growing demand for low-carbon energy. As we all know, the Montana area has significant limitations in regional interties and in generation diversity and ownership options. Fixing these problems would greatly facilitate wind integration.
The long term objective is to plan and operate over a wider geographic region. Part of the strategy should be to include as much low-carbon energy as practical, and then fill in the remaining needs in whatever ways possible. The major problem with opting for the coal plant now with little consideration of alternatives is that a decision would be made that locks in a high carbon source (and the associated investment dollars) for perhaps 50 years, and puts off for many years the engineering analyses and action that would lead to the higher-flexibility, lower-carbon system of the future. I stressed that we need the power engineers — including those at SME — to help us work through these challenges. This is not a simple problem; but others are meeting the challenge, including the Europeans and some here in the US as well.
Finally, and returning to the theme of risk management, I mentioned what I would worry about as first a shareholder and then an officer of a utility opting today for a coal plant. As a shareholder, I’d worry about future regulation that either increases the cost of the energy from the plant (through a carbon fee, e.g.) or curtails operation of the plant. And as an officer, I’d worry about product liability when the general public figures out that utility managements knew about the carbon risk but chose to downplay it anyway in their system expansion decisions. Some of those chickens have come home to roost in the tobacco industry.
In sum, we had a good discussion, at least in my view. He (Rich Ecke) seemed very interested and well informed, and took the time to talk through the issues in a way that is characteristic of a conscientious reporter who wants to go beyond sound bites. In response to a closing question from him, I recommended that SME give serious consideration to a significant amount of wind as part of a broader solution to their power needs.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Wolfpack,
I hope Ed’s explanation of firming sources of Wind is helpful. I dare to summarize by saying we could firm wind by better coordinating existing generating sources from within and without our state and/or new gas-fired plants or other good ramping generation could be built. Ed pointed out flaws in our small control area that need to be fixed for many reasons, but could also help wind integration. Another expert told me that power dispatch enhancements and training could allow for more wind power in a system, but that is probably better explained in another post. I’ll save your politically realistic question for another post as well. This is too long.
Peggy Beltrone
August 19, 2007
7 February 2009 |
Life |
2 Comments
“By my calculations, if we sell the coal plant 3,200 gpm, 24 hours a day, for 30 years, we will make a total of $8,073,216 off the sale of the water. If the plant uses water for 40 years, that total will go to $10,764,288.”
By using the same calculations, (which I certainly hope are accurate), and a few bits of information, I can come up with some new numbers.
“Water for the gas plant is one third of the amount needed for a coal plant, per Mr. Tim at the Feb. ECP Board meeting.”
$8,073,216.00 de-vided by three is $2,691,072.00. (1/3 of water needed for coal plant)
$2,691,072.00 de-vided by 30 years is $89,702.40 per year. (30 year life of plant. Don’t know actual life of gas plant.)
$1,144,206.00 water credit (debt) as of the 12/1/08 ECPI Board meeting. (Balzarini, December ECPI meeting)
$1,144,206.00 de-vided by $89,702.40 is 12.75.
12.75 years to pay of the current debt, but I did fail to add in the $15.40 we have recovered so far from water used by SME since November. I cannot tell if that was already applied by Ms. B. and I don’t think it will skew my numbers too much.
And I bet these new developments make PPL as happy as a pig in shit. More on that later.
7 February 2009 |
Life |
4 Comments
“The city invested $2.7 million in the coal-fired facility, which Balzarini said will roll over into the new project.”
So, is the $2.7 million just rolling over, or will the City get ownership interest in the new plant equal to that investment?
Another thing, and these numbers may not be perfect, I am doing this on the fly, but where is the number of customers coming from. Originally, it was 120,000 customers, which included the residents of the City. That got shot down by the PSC. Then the number of customers started showing up as around 65,000, then 50,000 which is what the Tribune used. However, RUS seemed to think that 40% of the power from the 250 MW plant was unsubscribed.
I have done some looking at the Coops, and I can’t get as high as 50,000 customers. Perhaps I have incomplete data…
5 February 2009 |
Life |
4 Comments
